Skip to main content

About your Search

20130115
20130123
STATION
MSNBCW 7
MSNBC 3
CNN 1
CNNW 1
LANGUAGE
English 13
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
are dealing with public opinion that is influx. you have had a shift in favor of stricter gun laws since the newtown shootings. you have had a greater openness toward leaguization. >> the said show is up next. when al gore lost in 2000, lost the electoral college vote he is the one who started saying that he lost because of his support and bill clinton's support for gun control measures including the assault weapons ban. other democrats began to say the same thing. well, that gave the nr afar more power than deserved. i didn't believe it was true then and i don't believe. >> west virginia, kentucky, tennessee that's where he was finding his problems, right? >> where republicans win anyway. the people who vote for republicans. in those states are not going to vote for a democrat. it doesn't matter what he does. >> i'm not going to argue except on these points of electoral college votes. it used to be we got arkansas the democratic side. west virginia was consistently -- anyway, the guys on the far right here. fear factor. kentucky senator rand paul wants to run for president is concerned
. and he'd like stricter laws on gun trafficking. but senator schumer, just as i challenged wayne lapierre of the nra very hard when this came up, i challenge you as well with a question of, is this really going to make a difference? and rich lawry wrote something that caught my attention in "the national review." no one can write a law against mothers owning guns that one day might be turned against them by deranged sons who then commit horrific acts of murder-suicide. shooting rampages are hard to prevent because they are so often committed by young men with no criminal records who want to die. these are adult facts that don't intrude on the childish world of white house policy making. he notes adam lanza in newtown, his own mother of course passed a background check. >> here's the bottom line. these laws are not perfect. and you'll always find certain exceptions. but they make a huge difference. every major person who has studied the brady law, which is the most significant gun safety law we've passed in the last 20 years has said it has reduced gun violence dramatically. law enforcemen
to pass laws to protect our citizens. so, i mean, this is the fear that they keep throwing out there, and they're not trying to get to someone that's a moderate. they're going straight to their hard core right people. that's why they lost the presidency, that's why they lost a few seats in the house. they have to start, excuse me, coming together to get not just on the gun issue, on an awful lot of issues. look what happened the other day with sandy. it was democrats that got that bill over the line. but, you know, it should be working together for all of the american people, and right now all the polls are showing the american people, including nra members, including gun owners, are saying we should be doing something. one of the things that we noticed, most people, nra members, gun owners, didn't know that everybody was not going through a background check. they didn't realize that 40% of gun owners are getting their guns without going through a background check. these are all law-abiding citizens when they go to buy their guns. why isn't everybody else? that's what we're fighting
to increase the debt ceiling in order to pay its bills. he singled out republican law americas warning them he will not negotiate on the matter adding brinkmanship would be absurd and irresponsible. >> raising the debt ceiling does not authorize us to spend more, all it does is say that america will pay it's bills. we are not a dead beat nation. >> in a statement john fwhier says the consequences of failing to increase the debt ceiling are real so, too, are the consequences of allowing our spending problem to go unresolved. republican senator mike lee of ue ah taw says the government needs put into place structural spending reform because simple spending cuts will no longer do the job. we are going to face another credit downgrade i fear because we will face it again without think being the way paushiwashi spends money. >> he is willing to work with republicans to reign in spending. he wants to conduct those talks separately from the gop to raise the debt ceiling. he hopes by doing so he can avert a first ever national default. >> kelly wright live in washington. thank you. >>> it is time to t
to our side saying, look, these guys are nuts, we've got to have sensible gun laws. and we do have to have sensible gun laws. let me tell you for every representative stockman, there's representative dent and fitzpatrick and gerlach who -- >> explain that because you know that suburban politics where you have republicans representing moderate political communities, and how will they react. >> not just philadelphia, but in st. louis, chicago, cleveland, and places like that, and those republicans are going to face a real tough decision. they stay with the nra and they endanger their re-election because in those districts, 70%, 80% of the people want these sensible measures. they want background checks for everyone, no exceptions. they want high capacity magazines banned. they want assault rifles banned. it's going to be a real test all over this country. >> michael steele is here. michael, you're a reasonable guy obviously. let's look at these numbers. "the washington post" numbers on gun show background checks, 88% support. this is a new "washington post" poll here. overwhelmingly
differently. the problem with the gun control debate from the perspective of folks who want gun control laws is they need to say, we don't want to target lawful gun owners. 47% of adults in this country say they have a gun in the home. you want to say, we want to separate out the people who are gun trafficking and doing other things that promote the climate of gun violence from that cause of lawful gun owners. i think the nra, they win by losing. the more you have a debate around these issues the more it seems we're going to get more gun laws, the nra builds intensity that way. >> erin, that's the mistake that i've been saying from day one. this should not be a gun control conversation. it should be a gun violence conversation. and if you are talking gun control, you're playing on the nra's field. if you say gun violence and you broaden it, that's a different debate. that's been the problem from day one. >> all right, thanks to all of you. you always want to have the home field advantage. if they have it, they have it. >>> doctors racing to save the vision of a man who was attacked with acid
of rights. it's sheer ignorance of basic constitutional law. it's ignorance of what justice scalia said. and that app, forget about whether 4-year-olds can play it or 8-year-olds can play it or 12-year-olds can play it. >> exactly. >> i guess, mika, the question is, what organization puts out an app like that that any children can play one month after the most just indescribably horrific slaughter of 6 and 7-year-olds? is that really how they mark the anniversary? has this organization become so out of touch, so insulated, so extreme, so arrogant that they think middle americans are going to put up with that? >> and they also -- look -- >> it's indescribable. >> they want to push back against regulations and laws. you know, i don't want to create a nanny state, as much as you all might disagree with that, but what kind of society do we want to be? what kind of decisions are you going to make, companies, on your own to help our society be better, healthier and promoting of good business and of good people in this world? and if that sounds naive, well, then i'll just go back to work on re
journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law. our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see america as a land of opportunity. >> in many ways, this speech was progressives. this is what we have been waiting for to hear for four years. the president is older now, and certainly wiser to the position about how washington works. but at least for today he will not let trivial politics derail the progressive course that this country is on. president obama looked out to the crowd on the national mall today and saw the full scope of america, young and old, rich and poor, black, white, hispanic, asian. he recognized the moment. he captured it. the mission he is charged with today is perhaps greater than his mission of four years ago. in 2009, he was of course there to lead us out of this economic tragedy that we were living in. in 2013, he needs to lead this country and make it the country that we all want to achieve. >> you and i as citizens had the power to set this country'
. the progressive era new deal and great society laws were enacted when america was still a young and growing nation. they were enacted in a nation that was vibrant, raw, underinstitutionalized and needing taming. reinvigorating a mature nation means giving government to give people the tools to compete but then opening up a wide field so they do so ruak cowsly creatively. it means spending more here but de regulating more there. it means facing the fact we do have to choose between current benefits to seniors and investments in our future, and that to pretend we don't face that choice as obama did is effectively to sacrifice the future to the past. >> jonathan, first, what do you think of this speech and secondly, what do you think of david's column? >> i thought the president's speech was terrific, a progressive vision for the country. the guy won twice and ran on all the things he talked about yesterday, inclusion, balanced approach to the nation's problems. when it comes to david brooks' column, as mika was reading, i was thinking, how is that different from what the president actually said? i m
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)